Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christianity

[Tart]

To say someones beliefs is just "wishful thinking" and in the imagination is an accusation that suggest people are creating things in their mind, that they are creating beliefs that might not necessarily be true or have any evidence supporting them, but declaring it as truth...

This is actually a very common criticism against those who hold beliefs in a God.

But what I am coming to realize is that my beliefs in Christianity, seem to be based and rooted in the evidence, and are subject to change accordingly to the evidence. The only reason I ever believed in God was because Jesus Christ was shown to support that idea. That I had no idea what something like "salvation" was until it was logically explained, and made sense of by the witnesses. That my hope and faith are byproducts of the testimony of the witnesses, and the reasonable ideas that they gave for the belief in the God of Christianity... My belief is dependent on the evidence, and subject to change according to the evidence.

Indeed, it seems to me that my beliefs are not something I created, from wishful thinking and the imagination. But are instead founded in the evidences of Christianity...


On the other hand, I see nonbelievers and atheist come to conclusions about Christianity that there is no supporting evidences of. That their conclusions arent support by evidence, but instead by their own reasoning in their imagination, and their "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

There are many examples, and its easy to spot them. All you have to do is ask for evidence. For years i have been asking atheists for evidence to back up their beliefs about Jesus and Christianity.. And many have tried, but have given no solid evidence or reasoning that there was no Jesus, or he didnt meet the prophecies of the Messiah, or the witnesses made the entire story up, or that people lied about the entire religion. It seems like there is just no solid evidence supporting any of these things..

For example, one user recently claimed that there was probably 2 Jesus's, but had no supporting evidence of that (like this was created in his imagination). Another claimed that Jesus was created by the Romans in 300AD, but when pressed it turned out the only evidence for this claim was a pronunciation problem he thought up in his head from a language he never spoke (many may recognize this claim). Or another example is that Jesus was a creation from other myths, like the movie zeitgeist claims, but this has been totally discredited by scholars, and it turned out that people just thought this up in the early 1900's in their imaginations.

Granted, some of these claims are rooted in atheism, and may be atheist siting other atheist. Like if someone sited zeitgeist (where zeitgeist is a totally imagined up, created, explanation of Christianity not supported by any evidence), that would mean they are siting evidence, but its still just rooted in the imagination. It seems like the roots of all these claims are people creating beliefs in their heads of who Jesus was, how Christianity came to be, and the where it came from, and not basing it off the evidence or letting the evidence lead to their conclusions... (if they did, i believe they would be Christians (like Lee Strobel for example))

I mean, atheists and non believers cant even agree with themselves here... All these beliefs are all over the place, like Paul hallucinated his encounter with Christ, or Paul didnt even exist. Or Rome created Jesus and Jesus didnt exist, or Jesus was really a man but not the Son of God... I mean we see all of these claims, and they dont even support themselves...

It seems to me that, not only the best explanation is the one given in the scriptures by the prophets and the witnesses, but it is the only reasonable explanation...

But the Bottom line here is... Who is creating a belief here? My belief are simply observations of Christianity. I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true... And it seems like all these other claims are things people are thinking up in their heads, like for example "Jesus is a myth".... The "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

Here is a supporting quote from an Agnostic New Testament Scholar.

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"~Bart Ehrman

[Don McIntosh]

Your conclusions about naturalism are simply wrong. You are attempting to push the theological "Problem of Evil" onto Naturalism, but that can't be made to work.

Let's look at your list:

1. Nature is all that exists.

So far so good.

2. Nature is neither good nor evil.

Again, no problem because if Nature is all that exists that everything is "amoral" (neither neither good nor evil.)

3. Evil exists.

Here's your problem right here. You are simply labeling things that humans don't like to be "evil" when your #2 has already stated that Nature is amoral and therefore it is incorrect to judge or label anything it does as being morally wrong ("evil").

I am not the one making the three claims. I'm simply pointing out that it's a problem for any person who does make those claims. Put them all together and they become logically problematic.

Please look up "reductio ad absurdum" and try again.

In fact, we already don't even consider Natural Disasters to be "Evil" because we recognize them to be amoral. They are neither well-intended nor ill-intended, they simply are what they are which is amoral events.

I don't know who the "we" is, referenced above, but plenty of well-informed naturalists and atheists routinely describe natural disasters and the like as evil.

Please look up "natural evil" and try again.

I certainly won't go into it here but your conclusions about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem are not valid. I have actually studied Godel's incompleteness theorem in quite some depth as I have found it to be quite interesting. Godel's incompleteness Theorem actually has to do with a problem of self-referenced systems.

The example you had given and the incorrect conclusions you have drawn from it are easy to show:

Your example sentence:

"The truth machine will never say that this sentence is true."

This is actually a self-referenced systems which create the apparent paradox. The self-referenced nature of it is not readily apparent in this specific case. But we can easily modify the sentence to change this.

What? To refer to "this sentence" in a sentence is clearly self-referential.

Your article you ask:

All this implies that as outside observers, we can somehow ascertain a truth that even a perfectly programmed truth machine cannot. This implies in turn that we, along with this special insight that only we can see, in some sense transcend any programmed system – even a system that houses all known truth. How can this be?

This is because we aren't part of that self-referenced system. To show this simply change your original sentence to read:

"Using perfect truth and honesty you will never say that this sentence is true."

Now you can see that you have become part of this self-referenced system. You can no longer claim to be "outside" the system looking in. So now you are stuck in this self-referenced feedback loop. So the only thing that made your truth machine special was because you wrote the sentence in a way to place the truth machine in this self-referenced feedback loop.

"Using perfect truth and honesty"? Why do I need these additional criteria if I'm just another machine? Do correctly programmed machines really have to be dissuaded from lying or distorting the truth?

Regardless, to this I could respond with something like, "Well, it may be that I will never say that the sentence is true, but that's only because you've given me no reason to think it true rather than merely paradoxical. Your sentence is self-referencing and it needs an external referent to become syntactically meaningful before its truth or falsehood can become decidable."

Now honestly, do you really think evolution "programmed" that response into me because answering questions about Godelian incompleteness on an Internet message board has immediate survival value for our species? If not, who did the programming and to what end?

And I didn't write that sentence. A quite competent mathematician did (Rudy Rucker). But if I did, it would have been to show that machines cannot, evidently, meaningfully reflect upon such a paradox. You could program our hypothetical truth machine to "recognize" a given self-referencing statement and "explain" its undecidability, of course; but then you could always input a new self-referencing statement on top of the first (being sure to keep it consistent with the rest of the system) and ask whether the new statement is true. To answer meaningfully the machine would again have to wait for further input. And so on.

That's from what I think I understand about all this at least. Unfortunately, as the article below argues, that may well be more than what I actually do understand (recommended reading):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy ... 3c8235d7c9

[Divine Insight]

Your conclusions about naturalism are simply wrong. You are attempting to push the theological "Problem of Evil" onto Naturalism, but that can't be made to work.

Let's look at your list:

1. Nature is all that exists.

So far so good.

2. Nature is neither good nor evil.

Again, no problem because if Nature is all that exists that everything is "amoral" (neither neither good nor evil.)

3. Evil exists.

Here's your problem right here. You are simply labeling things that humans don't like to be "evil" when your #2 has already stated that Nature is amoral and therefore it is incorrect to judge or label anything it does as being morally wrong ("evil").

I am not the one making the three claims. I'm simply pointing out that it's a problem for any person who does make those claims. Put them all together and they become logically problematic.

Please look up "reductio ad absurdum" and try again.

I don't see this as being a problem when they fully acknowledge that the very term "evil" refers to human subjective opinion.

This is where theists seem to lose track of the conversation. Human subjective opinions can still be recognized even though no such things as "absolute evil" exists.

In fact, all you are really doing here is demanding that we use the term "evil" to refer to some sort of absolute phenomena, when naturalists are actually recognizing it as a subjective opinion.

So there is no logical problem with the naturalist's argument. All that exists is your inability to fully comprehend what they are saying.

In fact, we already don't even consider Natural Disasters to be "Evil" because we recognize them to be amoral. They are neither well-intended nor ill-intended, they simply are what they are which is amoral events.

I don't know who the "we" is, referenced above, but plenty of well-informed naturalists and atheists routinely describe natural disasters and the like as evil.

Please look up "natural evil" and try again.

Don't forget, naturalists are necessarily speaking in terms of human subjective opinions. They can't be speaking in terms of any "absolute evil" because there is nothing in their philosophy that even permits such a concept to exist.

I certainly won't go into it here but your conclusions about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem are not valid. I have actually studied Godel's incompleteness theorem in quite some depth as I have found it to be quite interesting. Godel's incompleteness Theorem actually has to do with a problem of self-referenced systems.

The example you had given and the incorrect conclusions you have drawn from it are easy to show:

Your example sentence:

"The truth machine will never say that this sentence is true."

This is actually a self-referenced systems which create the apparent paradox. The self-referenced nature of it is not readily apparent in this specific case. But we can easily modify the sentence to change this.

What? To refer to "this sentence" in a sentence is clearly self-referential.

Exactly, and this is why the problem is not unique to machines. All you need to do is change the reference in this self-referenced sentence to point to a human instead of a machine, and the very same problem exists.

You were trying to use this example to claim that humans are somehow different from machines. When in fact the actual problem lies within the self-referenced sentence.

Your article you ask:

All this implies that as outside observers, we can somehow ascertain a truth that even a perfectly programmed truth machine cannot. This implies in turn that we, along with this special insight that only we can see, in some sense transcend any programmed system – even a system that houses all known truth. How can this be?

This is because we aren't part of that self-referenced system. To show this simply change your original sentence to read:

"Using perfect truth and honesty you will never say that this sentence is true."

Now you can see that you have become part of this self-referenced system. You can no longer claim to be "outside" the system looking in. So now you are stuck in this self-referenced feedback loop. So the only thing that made your truth machine special was because you wrote the sentence in a way to place the truth machine in this self-referenced feedback loop.

"Using perfect truth and honesty"? Why do I need these additional criteria if I'm just another machine? Do correctly programmed machines really have to be dissuaded from lying or distorting the truth?

Because this is the SAME criteria you had forced onto your machine. You claimed that your machine "must tell the truth". Therefore if you're going to be honest about applying this to a human you must also demand that the human "must tell the truth". Otherwise you have created two different situations for the machine and the human. And they you would be trying to use those different situations to claim that a human is different from a machine.

Well, duh? Humans who aren't honest and truthful are most certainly different from a machine that must always tell the truth. So if you allow for that then you have created your own distinction between what the machine is permitted to do versus what a human is permitted to do.

Regardless, to this I could respond with something like, "Well, it may be that I will never say that the sentence is true, but that's only because you've given me no reason to think it true rather than merely paradoxical. Your sentence is self-referencing and it needs an external referent to become syntactically meaningful before its truth or falsehood can become decidable."

And it's also YOU who have forbidden your machine to make this assessment. Therefore is it YOU who has created a machine that is different from a human because you have limited what the machine can do by refusing to include that extra ability to analyze the situation. So this would be your failure as a programmer, and cannot be blamed on the machine.

Now honestly, do you really think evolution "programmed" that response into me because answering questions about Godelian incompleteness on an Internet message board has immediate survival value for our species? If not, who did the programming and to what end?

Evolution isn't what "programmed" you. Evolution is certainly responsible for having wired your brain to a very large degree, but your experiences, and EDUCATION in life is where your actual "programming" comes from. So your claim that humans are different from machines still fails. Especially in your extremely simple example of a machine that has been programmed to always tell the truth and NOTHING ELSE.

YOU have placed that limitation on the machine you are comparing with humans. It's not a limitation of machines in general.

And I didn't write that sentence. A quite competent mathematician did (Rudy Rucker). But if I did, it would have been to show that machines cannot, evidently, meaningfully reflect upon such a paradox. You could program our hypothetical truth machine to "recognize" a given self-referencing statement and "explain" its undecidability, of course; but then you could always input a new self-referencing statement on top of the first (being sure to keep it consistent with the rest of the system) and ask whether the new statement is true. To answer meaningfully the machine would again have to wait for further input. And so on.

And how is this different from a human again?

In fact, there exist MANY humans who are totally perplexed when presented with things like finding the truth value of a sentence like "This sentence is a lie", and asked to evaluate it for its truth value.

The fact is that the sentence simply makes no sense because it is a self-referenced situation. In other words, "This Sentence" doesn't really refer to anything meaningful. The sentence is neither true or false because it is simply a meaningless string of words that doesn't communicate anything meaningful that could be evaluated as being true or false.

You are taking this situation and then trying to push it onto a machine and then claiming that humans can see the problem but the machine can't. ONLY because you also demand that the machine hasn't been programmed to make that sort of analysis.

Well, duh, there also exist humans who aren't "programmed" (i.e. educated) to the point to be able to make those sort of analysis either. So there's really no difference at all between your machine and a human other than the fact that you have willingly refused to program (i.e. educate) your machine to the same degree that some humans have been educated.

In short, your claim that this somehow shows that humans are different from all possible thinking machines fails miserably. And this holds even if there are Ph.D mathematicians and philosophers taking the same position. Just because they too have failed to realize that the problem is easily solved by simply giving the machine additional programming (or education) doesn't mean that they are right to then conclude that humans are somehow fundamentally different from machines.

And that is the conclusion that you are relying upon. A conclusion that does not hold water.

That's from what I think I understand about all this at least. Unfortunately, as the article below argues, that may well be more than what I actually do understand (recommended reading):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy ... 3c8235d7c9

Well, if you are accepting the conclusion that this example of a "Truth Machine" somehow leads to the conclusion that humans are necessarily more capable thinkers and can reason better than machines in general, then I would strongly suggest that you take some time to think through this more carefully.

The "Truth Machine" in this example is indeed limited. And therefore humans are indeed more capable of further analysis and not limited to only evaluating whether something is true or false.

That much is clearly TRUE.

But then to make a blanket conclusion that this means that humans are somehow superior to any and all possible "Thinking Machines" is simply unwarranted. It's clearly non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that just because you have one example where a "limited" machine cannot analyze things as well as a human that this means that there is something very special about humans that "no machine" could ever accomplish.

It's just not a sound conclusion.

Surely you can see this?

Also, keep in mind that modern day "thinking machines" are being designed to the point where they can learn on their own. So any arguments that thinking machines will always be limited to only what their programmers had initially programmed them to do are no longer valid arguments anyway.

Finally, be very careful when taking into consideration ideas from famous and popular philosophers, and even mathematicians, who may have lived and possibly even died, before "self-learning machines" were even known to be possible.

So we need to be very careful when we point back to philosophers who came to their conclusions even as late as only a few decades ago. They were working with assumptions and premises that simply no longer apply today.

[Tart]

Ultimately this is a question that should, in the very least, linger in your thoughts... Why is Jesus said to be the saviour? I hope everyone reading this can come to an explanation that makes sense out of this question. The we attempt to make sense of the evidence, and not just say "this doesn't make sense to me" but attempts to explain why anything exists at all. Like Christianity.

There is a specific historical reason, but I doubt that you will accept it.

Sometime during the second millenium BC there lived a religious figure known to history as Zoroaster, or Zarathustra. His religion, known as Zoroastrianism, would would become the dominant religion of Persia, and much of the Mediterranean world. Zoroaster's message to the world was that there is only one God, the Wise Lord called Ahura Mazda. After Zoroaster's death, three savior's were foretold to be coming to save humankind during the final battle and triumph over evil and the coming kingdom of God.

Wikipedia
Saoshyant
Saoshyant (Avestan: Saoš�iiaṇt̰) is the Avestan language expression that literally means "one who brings benefit", and which is used in several different ways in Zoroastrian scripture and tradition. In particular, the expression is the proper name of the Saoshyant, an eschatological saviour figure who bring about Frashokereti, the final renovation of the world in which evil is finally destroyed. The term was contracted to 'Soshans' in Zoroastrian tradition, and came to apply to three saviour figures that progressively bring about the final renovation.

In tradition
Those medieval works of Zoroastrian tradition envision three future saviours, each of them a 'Soshans'/Saoshyant, with one for the end of each thousand-year period that comprise the last 3,000 years of the world (these three millennia follow the 'millennium of Zoroaster'). According to the tradition (found e.g. in the Jamasp Namag), the first Saoshyant will be named (H)Ushedar, the second (H)Ushedarmah and the third will again be the Saoshyant, who will lead humanity in the final battle against evil.

Zoroaster lived during the second millenium BC. At the time of Jesus it was reckoned that the third thousand year period had begun, so there was a great expectation among non Jewish Hellenic peoples that the Saoshyant was due and the final battle with evil, which would usher in the kingdom of God (Ahura Mazda) was at hand.

The author of Gospel Matthew went to great lengths to establish that Jesus was the long awaited savior (Saoshant).

Matthew 2:
1. Now after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi from out of the east showed up in Jerusalem

The Magi were Zoroasterian priests.

Wikipedia
Magi
Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; singular magus /ˈmeɪɡəs/; from Latin magus) denotes followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known use of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

Gospel Matthew specifically indicates that Jesus was accepted and sanctified by the Magi as the long awaited Saoshyant/savior. This was a very popular existing belief among non Jewish people. But it was not a Jewish belief. Which helps explain why the story of the coming of Jesus achieved such widespread popularity among non Jewish people, but was never widely accepted by the Jewish population.

Ok, so that may establish a foundation of what you believe, but it doesnt do so to say how it effected Christianity. How it influenced Jesus, the witnesses, or the prophets... So what do you believe exactly?

Also, i dont know anything really about this, so i googled, read some articles... One of the first videos that popped up was this one... It looks like this is similar to Zeitgeist... That people claim Jesus was ripped off from other sources.... (video below).. In order for us to analize this, we would need the primary soruces of Zoroaster, and compare them to the primary sources of Jesus (the New Testament). We would also need its dates, when it was written..

Do you have that? If not... What evidence do you have?

[youtube][/youtube]

[Tart]

Ultimately this is a question that should, in the very least, linger in your thoughts... Why is Jesus said to be the saviour? I hope everyone reading this can come to an explanation that makes sense out of this question. The we attempt to make sense of the evidence, and not just say "this doesn't make sense to me" but attempts to explain why anything exists at all. Like Christianity.

I can easily make sense of why Christianity exists.

Why did this religion claim that Jesus was "savior"?

Well, duh? They were expecting a "savior" in the form of a supposedly prophesied messiah who was supposed to become their King and lead them to freedom from oppression and bring peace to all nations.

So this is why the rumor of a "savior" is part of Christianity. It came out of the superstitions of the day.

Also, note that the original Jews didn't even believe in this 'nonsense'. And the reason they didn't believe it is precisely because Jesus never even remotely fulfilled the prophesy of their expected messiah. Their expected messiah was supposed to become their King and lead them to freedom and peace. That never happened.

So the reason all these things became a part of Christianity is because these types of rumors were "in the air" at the time.

Notice also, that these rumors took decades to actually grow into documented scriptures. Not only this, but these weren't the only rumors that existed. In fact, the rumors that survived as "Holy Scriptures" only did so because they were proclaimed to be such by religious and political leaders of the time.

They would even threaten to kill or seriously socially chastise anyone who dared to publicly speak out against them or claim that they weren't "Holy Scriptures".

So the evolution of Christianity as a religion is not the least bit of a mystery. It's easily explained.

In fact, how about you explaining how Islam became such a popular religion if there is nothing to it?

How can you not see the problem here?

Christianity explained as being nothing more that superstitious religious rumors growing to become a powerful political weapon to keep people in line and renounce the religions of other nations is a perfectly rational explanation.

In fact, are you even aware of how important religions where in cultural politics?

Like I say, can you explain how Islam become such a powerful religion? I can. It became a powerful religion for the same reasons that Christianity did. It was held out by political authoritarians as something that people must either believe or face serious social consequences for or possible even bodily harm or death.

These religions in the early Middle East were basically weapons of war. They are what kept these cultures motivated. Ever heard of the saying 'One nation under God'.

In fact, ask almost any religious person and they will most likely tell you that if it wasn't for religion there would be nothing to keep people together. Although they would more than likely phrase it as a "Believe in God" rather than as "religion".

In fact, (quite ironically), many of them claim that if there is no God then there's no reason to even be a good person, etc.

So the idea that people can be united into a strong "Kingdom" by getting them all to believe in a single God and religion has always been a powerful idea, and it was used in the Middle East quite prolifically.

So the rise of Christianity in that area of the world at that time in history should be no mystery to anyone. It needs no explanation, anymore than Islam does.

Uniting under a religious "flag" is what people did back then.

You seem to think that there's no rational explanation for this. But have you forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that in the early days, and even for many centuries, to so much as publicly speak out against Christianity or question the holiness of the "Holy Scriptures" could certainly cost you your social position, if not your life!

Look what happened to Copernicus, Galileo, Mendel, and even as late as Isaac Newton. You didn't dare challenge the religious beliefs of the church. It could cost you your career, or possibly your life.

This religion was a lean and mean political machine that was unfortunately also driven by archaic and absurd religious superstitions.

That's what it is Tart.

In fact, why aren't you asking yourself why any supposedly benevolent God would have associated himself with such a religion?

Isn't that a better question to be asking?

So for me, there is absolutely no problem at all explaining why Christianity exist. That's not even remotely a problem.

DI... this is just full of your idea of what you imagine Christianity to be.... Christianity didnt spread by the sword.. The foundation of Christianity was of churches that spread by the testimony of witnesses and other apostles and disciples, who them their-selves were killed for believing in Christ by the Romans, for the first 300 years... Yet they were able to effectively convert thousands of follower, who faced this exact kind of persecution from the Roman...

Saying that they believed a messiah was going to come, because of superstition, doesnt explain why any prophet wuold prophecy a "messiah" or "anointed one"... Saying they did so on superstition doesnt make sense... Can you make sense out of why dozens of prophets said anything at all? And how the witnesses were convinced that Jesus fulfilled these?

See, saying "this is based on superstition and legends/myths" doesnt explain the evidence.. I am looking for specific answers

[Divine Insight]

DI... this is just full of your idea of what you imagine Christianity to be.... Christianity didnt spread by the sword.. The foundation of Christianity was of churches that spread by the testimony of witnesses and other apostles and disciples, who them their-selves were killed for believing in Christ by the Romans, for the first 300 years... Yet they were able to effectively convert thousands of follower, who faced this exact kind of persecution from the Roman...

Sorry, but I don't see the same history you imagine to see. To the contrary, I even listed a few famous individuals who were clearly publicly and socially chastised by the Church and religious authorities for saying things that conflicted with the religious beliefs of the Church at that time.

In fact, everything those religiously chastised individuals were chastised for having said turned out to be true. These Churches had to later recant their own behavior and acknowledge that their superstitious beliefs were indeed false.

So I have proven my case.

All you are doing here is refusing to accept the blatant obvious proof that has been given to you clearly.

You continue to refuse to accept that your challenge has indeed been accepted and met.

And now all you are doing is wallowing in denial.

Moreover, you have totally ignored my proposition to you to explain how it came to be the billions of people believe in Islam?

Then explain why billions of people believe in Buddhism, etc.

Christianity holds no special place in the arena of world religions. It might just happen to have the most believers (depending on how you count them), but some religion needs to hold that place anyway.

Not only this but it's actually a farce to claim that so many people believe in "Chrsitianity", and the reason for this is because Christianity itself has fallen into countless disagreeing factions. So the people who call themselves "Christians" don't all believe the same things anyway. They may be willing to share the same label of "Christians", simply because this then makes them appear to have more followers and believers. But they clearly don't believe the same things.

Face it. Very few Christian sects and factions agree with each other. So it's really not even a coherent religion when all the disagreeing "Christianities" are taken into consideration.

And so here's a question for you:

If Christianity is such a well-defined and coherent religion then why is it that almost no two Christians can even agree on what it means?

Please explain that one.

And don't forget to also address why the Churches were WRONG in their superstitious beliefs and the religiously chastised scientists I mentioned earlier actually discovered the TRUTH of reality that conflicted with Christian superstition?

Credible known history suggests that you are the one who has a lot of explaining to do if you want to try to hold Christianity up as a meaningful religion.

Apparently Christian superstitions have been refuted by discoveries of the true nature of reality on many occasions already. That's water over the historical damn. There's no bringing back those religious superstitions.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Ultimately this is a question that should, in the very least, linger in your thoughts... Why is Jesus said to be the saviour? I hope everyone reading this can come to an explanation that makes sense out of this question. The we attempt to make sense of the evidence, and not just say "this doesn't make sense to me" but attempts to explain why anything exists at all. Like Christianity.

There is a specific historical reason, but I doubt that you will accept it.

Sometime during the second millenium BC there lived a religious figure known to history as Zoroaster, or Zarathustra. His religion, known as Zoroastrianism, would would become the dominant religion of Persia, and much of the Mediterranean world. Zoroaster's message to the world was that there is only one God, the Wise Lord called Ahura Mazda. After Zoroaster's death, three savior's were foretold to be coming to save humankind during the final battle and triumph over evil and the coming kingdom of God.

Wikipedia
Saoshyant
Saoshyant (Avestan: Saoš�iiaṇt̰) is the Avestan language expression that literally means "one who brings benefit", and which is used in several different ways in Zoroastrian scripture and tradition. In particular, the expression is the proper name of the Saoshyant, an eschatological saviour figure who bring about Frashokereti, the final renovation of the world in which evil is finally destroyed. The term was contracted to 'Soshans' in Zoroastrian tradition, and came to apply to three saviour figures that progressively bring about the final renovation.

In tradition
Those medieval works of Zoroastrian tradition envision three future saviours, each of them a 'Soshans'/Saoshyant, with one for the end of each thousand-year period that comprise the last 3,000 years of the world (these three millennia follow the 'millennium of Zoroaster'). According to the tradition (found e.g. in the Jamasp Namag), the first Saoshyant will be named (H)Ushedar, the second (H)Ushedarmah and the third will again be the Saoshyant, who will lead humanity in the final battle against evil.

Zoroaster lived during the second millenium BC. At the time of Jesus it was reckoned that the third thousand year period had begun, so there was a great expectation among non Jewish Hellenic peoples that the Saoshyant was due and the final battle with evil, which would usher in the kingdom of God (Ahura Mazda) was at hand.

The author of Gospel Matthew went to great lengths to establish that Jesus was the long awaited savior (Saoshant).

Matthew 2:
1. Now after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi from out of the east showed up in Jerusalem

The Magi were Zoroasterian priests.

Wikipedia
Magi
Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; singular magus /ˈmeɪɡəs/; from Latin magus) denotes followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known use of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

Gospel Matthew specifically indicates that Jesus was accepted and sanctified by the Magi as the long awaited Saoshyant/savior. This was a very popular existing belief among non Jewish people. But it was not a Jewish belief. Which helps explain why the story of the coming of Jesus achieved such widespread popularity among non Jewish people, but was never widely accepted by the Jewish population.

Ok, so that may establish a foundation of what you believe, but it doesnt do so to say how it effected Christianity. How it influenced Jesus, the witnesses, or the prophets... So what do you believe exactly?

Also, i dont know anything really about this, so i googled, read some articles... One of the first videos that popped up was this one... It looks like this is similar to Zeitgeist... That people claim Jesus was ripped off from other sources.... (video below).. In order for us to analize this, we would need the primary soruces of Zoroaster, and compare them to the primary sources of Jesus (the New Testament). We would also need its dates, when it was written..

Do you have that? If not... What evidence do you have?

[youtube][/youtube]

First of all, most of the claims refuted by the video are claims I never made. Zoroaster was a human being; a prophet who, like Muhammad, lived and died. I never claimed that Jesus represented the reincarnation of Zoroaster. I DID point out however that the author of Gospel Matthew very clearly indicated that Jesus represented the fulfillment of Zoroastrian prophecy of a coming messiah, known as the Saoshyant in Persian.

Matthew 2:
1. Now after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi from out of the east showed up in Jerusalem.

Matthew 2:1-2 (Greek Interliner Translation)

OF-the yet Jesus being born in Bethleham OF-the Judea in DAYS OF-HEROD THE KING lo! magi(magoi) from the east came-along into Jerusalem saying ?-where IS BEING-BROUGHT-FORTH KING OF-THE JUDA-ans WE-PERCEIVED for OF-HIM the star in the east and WE-CAME TO-worship to-Him.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/mat2.pdf

The word "Magi" has been translated as "wise men" in most Bibles, which serves to obscure the Persian/Zoroastrian connection. But the Magi were Persian Zoroastrian priests who had the reputation in ancient times of being individuals of great learning, who possessed mystical powers. Our words for magic, magician and magical are derived from the word magi. Gospel Matthew declares that the Magi traveled from the east (Persia) to worship the newly born Jesus, thus recognizing that the long expected saoshyant/savior had been born.

Encyclopedia Americana
"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroasterianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant(Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels, resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana,"Zoroastrianism" pp.813-815).

Is Christianity a direct rip off of Zoroastrianism? Christianity incorporates numerous aspects of various ancient beliefs.

Historian Will Durant writes:
"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual;the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shining in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (The Story of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595).


J.M. Robertson writes:
"Like Christ,and like Adonis and Attis, Osiris and Dionysus also suffer and die to rise again. To become one with them is the mystical passion of their worshippers. They are all alike in that their mysteries give them immortality. From Mithraism Christ takes the symbolic keys of heaven and hell and assumes the function of the virgin-born Saoshyant, the destroyer of the evil one. Like Mithra, Merodach,the Egyptian Khousu, he is a mediator; like Khousu, Horus and Merodach he is one of a trinity, like Horus he is joined with the Logos; and like Merodach he is associated with a holy spirit, one of whose symbol is fire. In fundamentals, Christianity is but paganism reshaped."(Pagan Christs, Robertson pp.52-53)

[Tart]

First of all, most of the claims refuted by the video are claims I never made. Zoroaster was a human being; a prophet who, like Muhammad, lived and died. I never claimed that Jesus represented the reincarnation of Zoroaster. I DID point out however that the author of Gospel Matthew very clearly indicated that Jesus represented the fulfillment of Zoroastrian prophecy of a coming messiah, known as the Saoshyant in Persian.

Matthew 2:
1. Now after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi from out of the east showed up in Jerusalem.

Matthew 2:1-2 (Greek Interliner Translation)

OF-the yet Jesus being born in Bethleham OF-the Judea in DAYS OF-HEROD THE KING lo! magi(magoi) from the east came-along into Jerusalem saying ?-where IS BEING-BROUGHT-FORTH KING OF-THE JUDA-ans WE-PERCEIVED for OF-HIM the star in the east and WE-CAME TO-worship to-Him.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/mat2.pdf

The word "Magi" has been translated as "wise men" in most Bibles, which serves to obscure the Persian/Zoroastrian connection. But the Magi were Persian Zoroastrian priests who had the reputation in ancient times of being individuals of great learning, who possessed mystical powers. Our words for magic, magician and magical are derived from the word magi. Gospel Matthew declares that the Magi traveled from the east (Persia) to worship the newly born Jesus, thus recognizing that the long expected saoshyant/savior had been born.

Encyclopedia Americana
"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroasterianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant(Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels, resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana,"Zoroastrianism" pp.813-815).

Is Christianity a direct rip off of Zoroastrianism? Christianity incorporates numerous aspects of various ancient beliefs.

Historian Will Durant writes:
"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual;the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shining in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (The Story of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595).


J.M. Robertson writes:
"Like Christ,and like Adonis and Attis, Osiris and Dionysus also suffer and die to rise again. To become one with them is the mystical passion of their worshippers. They are all alike in that their mysteries give them immortality. From Mithraism Christ takes the symbolic keys of heaven and hell and assumes the function of the virgin-born Saoshyant, the destroyer of the evil one. Like Mithra, Merodach,the Egyptian Khousu, he is a mediator; like Khousu, Horus and Merodach he is one of a trinity, like Horus he is joined with the Logos; and like Merodach he is associated with a holy spirit, one of whose symbol is fire. In fundamentals, Christianity is but paganism reshaped."(Pagan Christs, Robertson pp.52-53)

Great, so first off, let me tell you what i believe ToN... I believe Jesus is historical. That not just some sources, but every single source we have from antiquity tell us Jesus really existed... We have no source that questions if Jesus existed until the 1800's... As far as we know, everyone in the Gospels is historical. The Kings mentioned, the leaders, the rulers, the chief of priests, the groups of people (like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, etc...) the Jewish leaders mentioned (like Nicodemus), the disciples... As far as we know, everyone is historical in the Gospels.. And i see no reason to assume anyone ISNT historical....

We then have people writing letters about Jesus, and Christian theology, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Book of Acts... Who mention real people, real places, and they mention events that happened... Now, out of all the historical people we have in these books, we have no one speaking out against it saying these things didnt happen (like the life of Jesus, the crucifixion, etc...)... Did Pontius Pilate object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Nicodemus object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Peter... Did any of these people speak up and say "NO! Thats NOT what happened!"... No... We have no objections from any of these historical people who were depicted in the Gospels and book of Acts, and Epistles...

So any objections are silent... On top of that, we have dozens of people confirming these things.. Every source we have confirms Jesus actually existed. We have people confirming the crucifixion, historians. And we have dozens of Disciples and witnesses confirming the Resurrection.... So thats the evidence..

Now this is what Christianity believes... That there is a God, all knowing and all powerful, that can fulfill destiny. This is key in Christianity. That there is prophecy that is revealed by God, that will or has been fulfilled... That means, Christianity believes, that Jesus came and fulfilled His destiny as the Son of God... So Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah (which, who knows, perhaps Jesus fulfilled Magi Prophecy). We have Jesus fulfilling the "law", and its requirements. We even have Jesus fulfilling other cultural ideas of God, like "logos" from the Greeks. Jesus was said to have even fulfilled the ideas the Greeks had for reasoning from pure and absolute truth, that could only be from God (Logos)... What we have is Jesus fulfilled all the prophecy and understandings of God, as he came as God in the Flesh. We have people like Justine Martyr who commented on Paganism, saying and Paganism is the one that is the poor imitation of Christianity, and not the other-way around.

As noted: "[Justin] further showed that Christianity is superior to paganism, that Christ is prophecy fulfilled, and that paganism is actually a poor imitation of the true religion."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/histo ... artyr.html

(i couldn't find the exact quotes from Justin's own writings, but that sums up some of the things he says)...

So Christianity believes Jesus fulfilled all the ideas we know about God, in the destiny of Gods will... That is actually the reason many believers in the first and second century converted. Because Jesus was actually a man in the flesh that became the Cornerstone of the Temple, and literally displayed the power of God.

So how does that work with your beliefs? Out of everything I have said, how do your beliefs support or contradict these things i have said?

Also.. Some of the quotes you have quoted from scholars are supporting zeitgeist... Here is what William Lane Craig said about this... Do you believe Jesus was a rip off from paganism? If so, how would you respond to the video below?

[youtube][/youtube]

[Tart]

Sorry, but I don't see the same history you imagine to see. To the contrary, I even listed a few famous individuals who were clearly publicly and socially chastised by the Church and religious authorities for saying things that conflicted with the religious beliefs of the Church at that time.

In fact, everything those religiously chastised individuals were chastised for having said turned out to be true. These Churches had to later recant their own behavior and acknowledge that their superstitious beliefs were indeed false.

So I have proven my case.

All you are doing here is refusing to accept the blatant obvious proof that has been given to you clearly.

You continue to refuse to accept that your challenge has indeed been accepted and met.

And now all you are doing is wallowing in denial.

No DI, I agree with you that after Rome adopted the Christian Faith, that then the religion was held by the state, and sometimes was even forced (although i dont know the exact extent of that force... Because Christianity itself never tells us to spread the Gospel by force, but Jesus even says to simply walk away and wipe the "dust off your shoes" if someone doesnt receive the Word... So spreading the religion by force isnt a Christian teaching)...

But if you claim Christianity only spread because the state forced it, that completely contradicts the first 3 to 4 hundred years of Christianity... It is a historical fact that Christianity was persecuted, and the Christian were killed in various ways for not denouncing their Faith... This includes nearly all the first Disciples...

And your response to that was "I don't see the same history you imagine to see."

Do you believe i made this up? Or its not true? And how would your beliefs understand the birth of Christianity? And the first 3 to 4 hundred years of the persecuted religion?

Moreover, you have totally ignored my proposition to you to explain how it came to be the billions of people believe in Islam?

Then explain why billions of people believe in Buddhism, etc.

Christianity holds no special place in the arena of world religions. It might just happen to have the most believers (depending on how you count them), but some religion needs to hold that place anyway.

Yes, so Christianity teaches there will be false prophets in the world... So certainly these other religions are not in anyway contradictory to Christianity being truth... In fact, if there was NO other religions, and NO other prophets (presumed "false prophets"), then that would be evidence against Christianity, because Christianity tells us these things will be in the world. So, this is consistent with Christianity, as Christianity is consistent with reality...

But if you want my opinion about these two religions (Islam and Buddhism):

Buddhism could be just more or less a philosophy.. Just some man thought up, and doesn't even need to necessarily be inspired by a god, but just a man... That is kind of a glace at it from my opinion..

Islam however, it is actually kind of funny for Islam because there is prophecy in the Bible about Islam. Like in Genesis 16:9-12, that talks of the prophecy of Ishmael, who was prophesied to have "descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count"... This is where the Arabs are believed to be descended from, and that includes Muhammad... And the prophecy goes on to say: "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.�... And this certainly seems to be consistent with our world, and with Islam, which is more evidence Christianity is true, and prophetic, and revealed from an "All Knowing" God...

And in fact, I think the Abrahamic Religions are like a fulfillment of prophecy and destiny. Like Jihad ("holy way") and the Middle east.. The Bible has prophecies about our world and the wars that go on in the middle east. Revelations actually names cities and conflicts that the middle east will be in, and it looks like this was all prophetic going right back to the Patriarch, like in 1600BC...

Certainly Christianity makes sense out of our reality, and is consistent with our reality.

If you want to compare the evidence of Islam and Christianity... There is a big difference... Muhammad in a cave, claiming to be revealed a message from God, could have just made it up... Although I believe it is a fulfillment of prophecy, the evidence of Islam is not nearly comparable to the magnitude of the evidences of Christianity.

Not only this but it's actually a farce to claim that so many people believe in "Chrsitianity", and the reason for this is because Christianity itself has fallen into countless disagreeing factions. So the people who call themselves "Christians" don't all believe the same things anyway. They may be willing to share the same label of "Christians", simply because this then makes them appear to have more followers and believers. But they clearly don't believe the same things.

Face it. Very few Christian sects and factions agree with each other. So it's really not even a coherent religion when all the disagreeing "Christianities" are taken into consideration.

And so here's a question for you:

If Christianity is such a well-defined and coherent religion then why is it that almost no two Christians can even agree on what it means?

Please explain that one.

This is a bit of a ridiculous argument.. You guys are persecuting Christianity unfairly where you wouldnt hold other things to the same standard of evidence that you do to Christianity... Who cares if people dont share the same beliefs, people dont share the same beliefs in politics, or academia, or even science...

Personally I think Christians usually, for the most part agree with themselves. That the scriptures are inspired by God, that Jesus came and fulfilled the Messiah's prophecies, that Jesus was resurrected, and is savior...

However there may be some disagreement, but anyone two opinions of the evidence doesnt change the evidence itself and its objective nature of existence.

I mean, if you want to write off Christianity for people disagreeing about it.. Why not science?

Science might generally agree on big issues, but even disagree sometimes... Scientist disagrees on a lot of things, the exact nature of how it works physically.. They disagree, Einstein disagreed with many people... And there is even odd balls who use science as to support a flat earth... So maybe we should just throw away science becuase of this?

How is this not a double standard? You guys are holding Christianity to a standard you wouldnt hold other things.. All this does is show a clear cognitive bias against Christianity... In which case, we should expect you to have totally irrational objections against Christianity... And here we are...

And don't forget to also address why the Churches were WRONG in their superstitious beliefs and the religiously chastised scientists I mentioned earlier actually discovered the TRUTH of reality that conflicted with Christian superstition?

Credible known history suggests that you are the one who has a lot of explaining to do if you want to try to hold Christianity up as a meaningful religion.

Apparently Christian superstitions have been refuted by discoveries of the true nature of reality on many occasions already. That's water over the historical damn. There's no bringing back those religious superstitions.

I disagree, I think nothing has been able to explain the resurrection, the prophecies, or the Messiah, in some kind of natural way saying these are superstitions.... It is obvious that these ideas were not created as a way of explaining some natural phenomenon. The core of Christianity rest on evidence that doesn't have a natural explanation... So saying it was created just to explain how nature works, isnt a good argument to be made.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Great, so first off, let me tell you what i believe ToN... I believe Jesus is historical. That not just some sources, but every single source we have from antiquity tell us Jesus really existed... We have no source that questions if Jesus existed until the 1800's... As far as we know, everyone in the Gospels is historical. The Kings mentioned, the leaders, the rulers, the chief of priests, the groups of people (like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, etc...) the Jewish leaders mentioned (like Nicodemus), the disciples... As far as we know, everyone is historical in the Gospels.. And i see no reason to assume anyone ISNT historical....

I have never denied that Jesus existed as real person. At the same time, I am offering no firm assurance that Jesus is anything other than a myth. It is simply a fact that there are no references made about Jesus during the time when he was supposed to have lived. ALL of the references made about Jesus are taken from years after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, by individuals who either clearly never knew Jesus, or who cannot be accurately identified. I am personally of the opinion that the story of the crucified carpenter arouse too abruptly to have been based entirely on a myth. Those that subscribe to the "Jesus was a myth" explanation make their own case.

We then have people writing letters about Jesus, and Christian theology, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Book of Acts... Who mention real people, real places, and they mention events that happened... Now, out of all the historical people we have in these books, we have no one speaking out against it saying these things didnt happen (like the life of Jesus, the crucifixion, etc...)... Did Pontius Pilate object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Nicodemus object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Peter... Did any of these people speak up and say "NO! Thats NOT what happened!"... No... We have no objections from any of these historical people who were depicted in the Gospels and book of Acts, and Epistles...

We do indeed have a great number of people, followers of Jesus during rise of Christianity, writing about Jesus. There are the 27 books of the canonical NT of course. Here is is a more complete list.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

It is possible to cherry pick just about any view of Jesus that one might find appealing from the existing documents written about Jesus. Which, not really coincidentally, is exactly what the Catholic church did when they selected the current canon of 27 books.

So any objections are silent... On top of that, we have dozens of people confirming these things.. Every source we have confirms Jesus actually existed. We have people confirming the crucifixion, historians. And we have dozens of Disciples and witnesses confirming the Resurrection.... So thats the evidence..

Consider the above list of documents that I provided. They are not exactly silent. They have been effectively silenced by official church dogma. Notice that you were never told of their existence in catiscm, or in Sunday school. Catiscism and Sunday school are tools that Christians use to indoctrinate successive generations of Christian believers. Contradictory information has no place in catiscism or Sunday school classes.

The Catholic church had the physical and political power to declare just what official dogma would be for many centuries. Many of those who subscribed to alternate beliefs were eradicated in cruel ways.

Now this is what Christianity believes... That there is a God, all knowing and all powerful, that can fulfill destiny. This is key in Christianity. That there is prophecy that is revealed by God, that will or has been fulfilled... That means, Christianity believes, that Jesus came and fulfilled His destiny as the Son of God... So Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah (which, who knows, perhaps Jesus fulfilled Magi Prophecy). We have Jesus fulfilling the "law", and its requirements. We even have Jesus fulfilling other cultural ideas of God, like "logos" from the Greeks. Jesus was said to have even fulfilled the ideas the Greeks had for reasoning from pure and absolute truth, that could only be from God (Logos)... What we have is Jesus fulfilled all the prophecy and understandings of God, as he came as God in the Flesh. We have people like Justine Martyr who commented on Paganism, saying and Paganism is the one that is the poor imitation of Christianity, and not the other-way around.

What exactly is the difference in the declarations of Christian beliefs as you have just established... And pure make believe? If we define "make believe" as the tendency to make up solutions to questions by first imagining and then declaring them to be true?

As noted: "[Justin] further showed that Christianity is superior to paganism, that Christ is prophecy fulfilled, and that paganism is actually a poor imitation of the true religion."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/histo ... sts/justin...

It would be a poor religion that didn't declare itself to be, not only fully true, but superior to all other religious beliefs.

So Christianity believes Jesus fulfilled all the ideas we know about God, in the destiny of Gods will... That is actually the reason many believers in the first and second century converted. Because Jesus was actually a man in the flesh that became the Cornerstone of the Temple, and literally displayed the power of God.

Christianity declares that Christian claims are the fulfillment of Christian claims concerning the fulfillment of what Christians claim are God's purposes. (See my statement above).

So how does that work with your beliefs? Out of everything I have said, how do your beliefs support or contradict these things i have said?

As an atheist I have no religious beliefs. I consider all religious claims to be completely equal in obvious nonsense.

Also.. Some of the quotes you have quoted from scholars are supporting zeitgeist... Here is what William Lane Craig said about this... Do you believe Jesus was a rip off from paganism? If how would you respond to the video below?

Christianity is just ancient pagan superstition reworked and reformed into an attractive package that has served to offer the widest appeal to the most people.

[Tart]

Great, so first off, let me tell you what i believe ToN... I believe Jesus is historical. That not just some sources, but every single source we have from antiquity tell us Jesus really existed... We have no source that questions if Jesus existed until the 1800's... As far as we know, everyone in the Gospels is historical. The Kings mentioned, the leaders, the rulers, the chief of priests, the groups of people (like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, etc...) the Jewish leaders mentioned (like Nicodemus), the disciples... As far as we know, everyone is historical in the Gospels.. And i see no reason to assume anyone ISNT historical....

I have never denied that Jesus existed as real person. At the same time, I am offering no firm assurance that Jesus is anything other than a myth. It is simply a fact that there are no references made about Jesus during the time when he was supposed to have lived. ALL of the references made about Jesus are taken from years after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, by individuals who either clearly never knew Jesus, or who cannot be accurately identified. I am personally of the opinion that the story of the crucified carpenter arouse too abruptly to have been based entirely on a myth. Those that subscribe to the "Jesus was a myth" explanation make their own case.

Ok, i was just simply stating what I believe, not stating it goes against what you believe...

However... Jesus was known publicly for 3 years of his life... So 3 years, in the public eye, living with mostly illiterate people... Is it any surprise we dont have a source which we know about? (Note*, perhaps there are sources we dont know about).. I dont find this unreasonable at all...

[references to Jesus were written] by individuals who either clearly never knew Jesus, or who cannot be accurately identified.

Ok, so we have people identified that know Jesus. That is, Peter, James, John, just to name a few... All of these people are claimed to have known Jesus, and are accurately identified...

What you are asserting here, doesnt seem to be accurate.

We then have people writing letters about Jesus, and Christian theology, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Book of Acts... Who mention real people, real places, and they mention events that happened... Now, out of all the historical people we have in these books, we have no one speaking out against it saying these things didnt happen (like the life of Jesus, the crucifixion, etc...)... Did Pontius Pilate object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Nicodemus object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Peter... Did any of these people speak up and say "NO! Thats NOT what happened!"... No... We have no objections from any of these historical people who were depicted in the Gospels and book of Acts, and Epistles...

We do indeed have a great number of people, followers of Jesus during rise of Christianity, writing about Jesus. There are the 27 books of the canonical NT of course. Here is is a more complete list.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

It is possible to cherry pick just about any view of Jesus that one might find appealing from the existing documents written about Jesus. Which, not really coincidentally, is exactly what the Catholic church did when they selected the current canon of 27 books.

Well there can be lots of claims about anything... In the court of law, we might admit some claims as credible in any case, and reject some claims as not credible... So if Jesus actually existed, and was Crucified (which I think you confess) .. There is an objective nature to the claim...

So maybe we should "cherry pick" that which we think accurately depicts Jesus... Right?

So any objections are silent... On top of that, we have dozens of people confirming these things.. Every source we have confirms Jesus actually existed. We have people confirming the crucifixion, historians. And we have dozens of Disciples and witnesses confirming the Resurrection.... So thats the evidence..

Consider the above list of documents that I provided. They are not exactly silent. They have been effectively silenced by official church dogma. Notice that you were never told of their existence in catiscm, or in Sunday school. Catiscism and Sunday school are tools that Christians use to indoctrinate successive generations of Christian believers. Contradictory information has no place in catiscism or Sunday school classes.

The Catholic church had the physical and political power to declare just what official dogma would be for many centuries. Many of those who subscribed to alternate beliefs were eradicated in cruel ways.

Ok, so I believe the evidence reasonably supports Jesus really existed, was crucified, and resurrected...

You listed a bunch of documents... Of all the documents you listed.. Do you think they ALL are total fiction? Or do you believe ALL of them are historical? Or do you believe some of them may be historical and some of them may not be historical? (like the catholic church)?

Now this is what Christianity believes... That there is a God, all knowing and all powerful, that can fulfill destiny. This is key in Christianity. That there is prophecy that is revealed by God, that will or has been fulfilled... That means, Christianity believes, that Jesus came and fulfilled His destiny as the Son of God... So Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah (which, who knows, perhaps Jesus fulfilled Magi Prophecy). We have Jesus fulfilling the "law", and its requirements. We even have Jesus fulfilling other cultural ideas of God, like "logos" from the Greeks. Jesus was said to have even fulfilled the ideas the Greeks had for reasoning from pure and absolute truth, that could only be from God (Logos)... What we have is Jesus fulfilled all the prophecy and understandings of God, as he came as God in the Flesh. We have people like Justine Martyr who commented on Paganism, saying and Paganism is the one that is the poor imitation of Christianity, and not the other-way around.

What exactly is the difference in the declarations of Christian beliefs as you have just established... And pure make believe? If we define "make believe" as the tendency to make up solutions to questions by first imagining and then declaring them to be true?

What are you suggesting is "Make believe' here? And who are you suggesting created it in their imagination?

As noted: "[Justin] further showed that Christianity is superior to paganism, that Christ is prophecy fulfilled, and that paganism is actually a poor imitation of the true religion."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/histo ... sts/justin...

It would be a poor religion that didn't declare itself to be, not only fully true, but superior to all other religious beliefs.

So Christianity believes Jesus fulfilled all the ideas we know about God, in the destiny of Gods will... That is actually the reason many believers in the first and second century converted. Because Jesus was actually a man in the flesh that became the Cornerstone of the Temple, and literally displayed the power of God.

Christianity declares that Christian claims are the fulfillment of Christian claims concerning the fulfillment of what Christians claim are God's purposes. (See my statement above).

So how does that work with your beliefs? Out of everything I have said, how do your beliefs support or contradict these things i have said?

As an atheist I have no religious beliefs. I consider all religious claims to be completely equal in obvious nonsense.

Also.. Some of the quotes you have quoted from scholars are supporting zeitgeist... Here is what William Lane Craig said about this... Do you believe Jesus was a rip off from paganism? If how would you respond to the video below?

Christianity is just ancient pagan superstition reworked and reformed into an attractive package that has served to offer the widest appeal to the most people.

As you are quoted saying "Christianity is just ancient pagan superstition reworked and reformed into an attractive package that has served to offer the widest appeal to the most people."

I mentioned a video, that you didnt respond to... What evidence do you have that the above quote is true? Did you watch the video of William Lane Craig? And have any thoughts?